“Secretary of State John F. Kerry said a “a very serious series of steps” would occur if the Crimean Peninsula, currently occupied by Russian military hardware and thousands of troops, votes to rejoin Russia. He did not get into specifics as to what those steps might be, only saying to a Senate Appropriations Committee panel that there would be ‘a response of some kind’.”

What’s “a very serious series of steps”?

It’s the boogaloo followed by the funky chicken followed by the lindy hop. It’s never before been attempted on live TV but will be seen next week when President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry team up to make a surprise appearance on Dancing With The Stars.

In fact, a “very serious series of steps” may occur on Dancing With The Stars, but our government will take no meaningful steps to punish Russia for annexing the Crimea.

And note the language “a very serious series of steps would occur if the Crimean Peninsula votes to rejoin Russia.” The word “rejoin” makes clear that the Crimea was once part of Russia and we’re left to wonder why the Crimean people should be prevented from “rejoining” Russia, if they freely choose to do so and Russia freely chooses to allow them to join?

When it comes to one nation being allowed to join another only if each nation’s constitution expressly permits such joinder, I wonder what part of the Hawaiian constitution allowed the Queen Lili’uokalani’s legitimate government of Hawaii to be overthrown in A.D. 1893, and annexed to the United States back in A.D. 1898 despite opposition by a majority of Hawaiians.

I even wonder about the constitutional authority for our government to encourage the “joinder” of the US with Canada and Mexico into the North American Union. I wonder about the constitutional authority for our government to subject itself to the United Nations and/or the New World Order. Apparently, our government is more concerned with enforcing the Constitution of the Ukraine than it is with enforcing the Constitution of the United States.

[courtesy Google Images]

• My first point is that most governments, including those of Russia and even the United States, are inherently opportunistic, immoral and predatory.

My second point is that it galls me to hear the Obama administration criticize the annexation of the Crimea on “moral” grounds. It’s like listening to a common whore preaching sermons to her customers on Saturday night. I’m very much in favor of evangelism, but I’m not likely to accept preaching from a whore.

There’s nothing happening to the people of the Crimea that’s one-tenth as bad as America’s unjustified, 8.5 year-long invasion of Iraq. There’s nothing happening to the Crimean people that’s one-tenth as bad as the American participation in the A.D. 2011 overthrow of the government of Libya and subsequent destruction of the Libyan nation. There’s nothing happening to the people of the Crimea that’s as bad as President Obama’s penchant for hand-picking the individuals to be murdered by drones.

While the US government seeks to give troublesome nations a dose of “shock and awe,” the Russian annexation of the Crimea may be achieved without the Russian military shooting a single Crimean or launching a single drone. The morality of the Russian annexation of the Crimea may may be debatable, but that annexation with the consent of both Russia and the majority of the people of the Crimea—and it will achieved without “shock” or “awe”. I think that’s a good thing.

However, listening to the Obama administration attempt to lecture Russia from the moral “high ground” irritates my gag reflex. That’s a bad thing.

• Are Obama and Kerry so contemptuous of the intelligence of the people of the United States of America and of the peoples of foreign countries that they think they can fool us forever with their gleaming lies? Is the Obama administration really that shameless?

More importantly, does anyone really believe the Obama administration’s claims to have rejected the Crimean annexation based on legalities? Good LORD!, the Obama administration has repeatedly and persistently shown utter contempt for American laws and especially, The Constitution of the United States.

As some of you may recall, our own Constitution requires the President of the United States to have been born in this country. Our current President (a former professor of constitutional law, incidentally) can’t even produce a credible birth certificate to prove that he was born in the US and is constitutionally eligible to be President. Nevertheless, “professor” Obama is delivering lectures on the constitutionality of the Crimean vote to be annexed to Russia.

Am I the only one who sees a massive, inherent and repugnant hypocrisy in “professor” Obama’s lectures on constitutionality?

Admittedly, Obama’s lectures might be technically correct. The Crimea probably does violate the Ukrainian constitution by voting to join Russia. But bear in mind that the Crimea was part of Russia until 60 years ago. And bear in mind that the majority of the Crimean population is Russian.

If the legal issues of this annexation are fairly clear, the moral issues are not.

• My complaint is that Obama lacks the moral credentials to deliver a lecture on the morality of Crimea’s annexation. Without that moral credibility, Obama is just another smooth-talkin’, self-serving pimp.

Are we to believe Obama’s claims that the Ukrainian constitution has been violated by the Crimean annexation, when those claims of “unconstitutionality” are being asserted by a President who won’t even recognize, support and defend our own national constitution?

Are we to believe complaints of unconstitutionality in Crimea from a President who has expressly refused to enforce immigration laws in this country?

I don’t think so.

Insofar as the Obama administration won’t obey our Constitution or even laws passed by Congress, where does it find the right to criticize other governments for disobeying their constitutions and laws? It’s like casting Miley Cyrus to star in “The Life of Mother Teresa”. It’s just too damn hypocritical to be believed.

• Which brings me back to “does anyone really believe the Obama administration’s claims” that the Crimean vote is unconstitutional?

Of course, some Americans believe him.

But I suspect that, having lost his own claim to the moral “high ground,” Obama has also lost so much credibility that many, probably most, Americans automatically disbelieve anything he says.

To be credible, a politician must at least maintain the persistent illusion of being a moral person. Once any politician proves that he’s immoral, he’s generally finished as a politician. He may still be heard, but he won’t be believed.

Witness Bill Clinton looking us in the eye and declaring “Ahh did not have sexual relations with that woman!” He narrowly avoided being impeached. He continued to hold his office. But he was finished. He spent the last three years of his administration in impotence.

Clinton continues to make millions of dollars. He’s still popular among many. But no one thinks of him as a moral man. No one thinks of him as a statesman. When he obviously lied and lost his moral credibility, he degraded himself into just another sideshow act in the circus we call Washington DC.

Similarly, morality makes men worthy to be followed and worthy to govern. An immoral man may have the power to govern, but never the right.[courtesy Google Images]

• Insofar as Obama has allowed himself to lose his own claim to the moral “high ground,” he’s also lost much of his capacity to really govern. He may not be a “lame duck,” but he’s become an “immoral duck” and thereby become unbelievable and incapable of governing.

Without an apparent claim to moral credentials, Obama has lost the people’s confidence. Having lost confidence in the figurehead that Obama provides, people also tend to lose confidence in our economy and even our currency.

These losses aren’t enormous or, by themselves, critical. America won’t collapse because Obama is immoral—but we will decline.

These losses of confidence aren’t easily reversed. Can you imagine anything that Obama could possibly do to restore your confidence in him? Anything? I can’t.

More, these losses in confidence are cumulative. While no single loss of confidence will be decisive, if we suffer enough such losses the resulting accumulation of lost confidence could be enough to push us into a depression.

If Obama really wants to help restore the American economy, he should resign from office and make way for another President able claim some semblance of moral credentials.

If Congress really wants to help restore the American economy, they should impeach Obama and remove him from office and make way for another President able t claim some semblance of moral credentials.

Of course, neither Obama nor the Congress gives a damn about this country and therefore we’ll remain stuck with an immoral, hypocritical President until at least after the A.D. 2016 election.

Still, it’s fascinating to see how important a claim to moral credentials can be. Obama, in particular, and the US government in general, are losing power at home and abroad—but not simply because they’re stupid, weak or even bankrupt. They’re losing power because they’re openly, merrily, blatantly, shamelessly immoral. We will not trust, we will not follow, a man or institution we know to be immoral. (I wonder if Saul Alinsky included that principle in Rules for Radicals.)

I’m reminded of a quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville:

“America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

President Obama is not “good”. He’s not a moral man. He laughs about it. He doesn’t even suspect that morality may be important.

Insofar as we have an immoral man in the Presidency, we all know in our guts that America is no longer morally good. The depths of our national immorality go far beyond having a Kenyan in the White House. But the Presidency is a profound and perhaps unparalleled symbol of America. When we look at the President and see an immoral man, we know that we, too, are immoral. We know that America is no longer “good”.

We also know in our guts that there’s a correlation between moral goodness and national greatness. Obama’s presence in the White House is not a threat to our future, so much as evidence of our past and present. He is us. We look at him and we see ourselves and we are secretly ashamed. How could that lying, murderous, Kenyan thug have come to occupy the office of President of the United States except by means of your negligence and mine?

You and I have failed to protect our nation. Obama is proof of our dereliction.

More, Obama’s presence in the White House is evidence that this nation will not, and cannot be, restored to “greatness” so long as we and our government remain openly immoral.

[courtesy Google Images]

• Even so, I’m faintly encouraged by the possibility that Americans may be learning to judge ourselves and our politicians on a moral basis. That possibility tells me that the people of American and of the world really do have a “moral compass”. That “compass” may not be unerring or highly sensitive, but it still exists—thank God. Perhaps the American people are getting ready to follow politicians on the basis of morality moreso than power.

Maybe . . . maybe . . . Americans are ready to reject the immoral argument that “might makes right” and at least pay lip service to the moral principle that “right makes might”. If so, we may yet rid ourselves of politicians like Obama and restore our national greatness.

22 responses to “The Moral Foundation for Governance”

Toland

March 17, 2014 at 11:50 AM

“The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country.”

Al, concerning this statement: “He narrowly avoided being impeached.”, in reference to Clinton.

Clinton was impeached, as I recall, but not removed from office. Nixon was impeached and chose to remove himself from office (before he was removed), as I recall. If Clinton wasn’t impeached, my copies of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper with headline “Clinton Impeached” are probably worth more to collectors than I think they’re worth. Kennedy was probably unimpeachable, but was removed from office.

Since the act of impeachment doesn’t really make a big difference in the big picture, there’s probably not much motivation to impeach Obama within those who would do the impeaching. Other avenues are being tried, but they probably won’t result in removal of Obama from office.

Speaking of office, I’m not sure that particular office has anything to do with me. Isn’t it an office of a rogue regime? The result of a hostile takeover? Am I bound to be represented by and follow a fraudulent conspiracy? Does Obama represent me? My answer is no.

It seems to be my responsibility to opt out, which includes not funding, not following, and not participating in the criminality. Isn’t that the responsibility of We the People?

Nixon was not impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, though the political currents that were then charged-up at that time may have wanted to had they voted on that, but Nixon resigned before it was brought to the House floor for consideration –i.e Articles of Impeachment.

jamesnicholas2047, Sometimes my recall isn’t 100%, that’s why I put the disclaimer in. You are correct. More precisely, Nixon saw the writing on the wall and headed for the hills.

EarlatOregon

March 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Using Law,
American people still have a little used Power,
in dealing with Immoral, Unlawful, Unconstitutional
actions by Representatives,
whether they are at the City, County, State,
or Federal level.

That Power is,
Indictment by Grand Juries.

When people are on a Grand Jury,
they could Indict,
any Representative that is elected within their State.

Some states allow Private attorney general,
federal Law does allows Private attorney general actions.

Perhaps Al Adask will do an Interview with Paul Mitchell,
on the Private attorney general process.

@ > the immoral argument that “might makes right” and at least pay lip service to the moral principle that “right makes might”.

Yes. And Right begets Right & grows into being MIGHTY & ALL POWERFUL. There is only ONE true source of saying & determining what is right & what is wrong. Some, very few it seems understand this. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. It will be a pleasure to wake & find out I am wrong about “some” things. Then again, I’m probably wrong about some things I think I’m right about.

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— SOME having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

At least Martens/Jetlag had “some semblance” of CLASS. IF anyone WORSE than ECHO MAN comes on this blog, I, know, it will be more than I can cope with. IF ECHO MAN is not “INCORRIGIBLE” IT’S about as CLOSE as anyone can get to being INCORRIGIBLE

Some people who have itching ears think so, OR, hear this way. Like watching the fading away dreams echoing through the valley. Like in the song, America, “God” shed his grace on thee.

citizenquasar

March 18, 2014 at 8:46 AM

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

@ >moon, you say, My gift seems to be helping others become pissed off. Yea, at times I’m very good at it, AND,

@ >The illusion of “god” won’t give you a miracle, AND,

@ >Smoking, drinking, and partying all night are looking healthier all the time. Maybe I’m still on a buzz here,

The Scriptures say; > For certain men have secretly slipped in among you–men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe–ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. < Jude 1:4

Wolf in sheep's clothing” simply means someone who is pretending to be something they are not.

Somebody must have heard it that time…the echo. It sounds as if someone is trying to exorcise deep seated frustration and rage. Am I the only one who hears this echo? If so, does that mean I’m gifted? Hmmmmmm…

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

2 Timothy 3:2-5

We find no reference here to murder, rape, or any other high felony, because Paul is speaking about people in general. He is describing not the criminal minority, but the respectable majority—not the atypical, but the average. Ordinary people in ordinary churches would be egotistical (“lovers of their own selves,” “boasters,” “proud,” “heady,” “highminded”), irreverent (“blasphemers”), materialistic (“covetous” is, literally, “lovers of money”), and hedonistic (“unholy,” “incontinent,” “lovers of pleasures”). They would enjoy few loving relationships, for they would be “disobedient to parents” and “without natural affection.” Yet they would readily make enemies, for they would be “unthankful,” “trucebreakers,” and “traitors.” And they would treat their enemies ruthlessly, for they would be “fierce” and “false accusers.” Being “despisers of those that are good,” they would persecute the righteous.

Despite this load of wickedness weighing on their souls, they would pretend to be Christians (“having a form of godliness”). But, as Paul observes, they would know nothing of real Christianity. They would be guilty of “denying the power thereof.” The true sense of the word translated “denying” is closer to “rejecting.” That is, they would reject the power of God to change their lives. Instead of aspiring to holiness through divine grace, they would prefer to remain in their filthiness.

The admonition to the sincere believer in the Last Days is, “From such turn away.” Comfort, reputation, and every other human consideration might urge him to continue in fellowship with hypocrites, but to maintain fellowship with God, and to defend his family from attacks that would spoil their faith, he must make the break. He must turn away. But where should he go? He must attach himself to a band of genuine believers, however small it may be. Having placed himself in a good church, he must work diligently to keep it a good church. He must do his part to weed out corruption and compromise as soon as they appear.